The key thing for me is maintaining an emphasis between the structural and personal understandings of misconduct. Both have to be kept in mind. I've been doing work on in-house lawyers for some time (see here for a summary https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/law-ethics/research/papers/erc-executive-report-legal-risk-definition-management-ethics.pdf and we are working on a longer piece exploring the interview data referred to in the study as well as a more quantitative study which is part of an engagement process with the in-house community in the UK, see here for more details https://elihls.wordpress.com/). One of the things that I think emerges from this is that the way the business defines its attitude to risk; the lawyers own conceptualisation of their role; their knowledge (at quite a basic level) of what professional obligations are imposed on them; and, their own personal values and objectives drive behaviour. On the whole, I'd say the lawyers are not good at conceptualising their role as a professional and weaker still at institutionalising and managing that role. This weakness comes from the lawyers themselves - individually and collectively - as well as from their environments. I absolutely agree with Alice that we have to be asking her tougher intractable questions about, if you like, the exo-skeleton within which lawyers operate but we also need to encourage introspection.